142
What?
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
142 points (100.0% liked)
The Right Can't Meme
867 readers
1 users here now
About
This community is about making fun of dumb right wing memes. Here you will find some of the cringiest memes that the right has ever posted on the internet.
Rules
-
All posts must be memes containing right wing cringe
-
No unrelated content
-
No bigotry
-
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No Exceptions.
Other Communities
!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world
!antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not ignored. It's a justification for the other half, not a requirement
... and if the justification for a thing goes away, that means the thing is completely unaffected. Yeah?
If you can argue that it's never a concern that the government will illegally exceed its constitutional authority and threaten the country's status as a free state, maybe. Good luck with that.
Answer the question. Is "exceeding its authority" the justification, in the first half of that sentence?
Ensuring a free state is the why, citizens owning guns is how
'We need X to do Y, therefore Z' makes X the how.
We objectively do not do X anymore. Not in any way that requires Z.
If you want MAGAs in government and law enforcement to be the only ones with guns then that's your decision. The 2nd amendment makes sure everyone else doesn't have to do that.
'American gun culture prevents American fascism' is not what happened so far. They have a relationship. That's not it.
And again: the amendment justifies guns guns guns with a militia that no longer exists. It's one sentence that does not say what you want.
So you're wrong here. But even if you weren't, nowhere in the amendment does it say belonging to a militia is a requirement
So passing gun control because the black panthers were arming themselves for protection against fascists is a success story for you?
It literally says it's for a militia. And that militia was replaced by the US Army.
The second amendment is about the state being able to raise an armed posse to defend the state.
You lead a rich inner life.
I am the one pointing out, gun-nut culture doesn't give a fuck about stopping fascism. Gun-nut culture doesn't even care about a right to guns, if it's the targets of fascism who have the guns. Since before I was born, American gun culture has been nigh-inseparable from the fascists you think it'll stop.
It literally does not say anything about requiring membership in a militia. Otherwise it would say the right of a militia to keep and bear arms, not the people.
So just totally ignorant of the history of gun control then?
Good thing those aren't the only people who are allowed to own guns then right?
Militias work like jury duty.
There is no "membership." Any man could be called up. It's a posse, but bigger. And it was BYOG.
That is literally the only reason the second amendment gives. 'We need farmers to bring guns when we first-act-of-Mulan them, so don't go limiting that.'
They weren't so you could fight the army.
They were so you could fight in the army.
If you have to pretend 'fascists abusing the Black Panthers despite their guns does not help your nonsense argument' means I am denying that fascists abused the Black Panthers, you do not speak English.
Who is allowed to own guns is a game of what-if. Who does own guns is reality.
So are you just unaware of how the country was founded? That the citizens did exactly that in order to be free from england? Did the framers just forget about that?
It's really not a game of what ifs. It's a matter of not repeating history, not making things worse and concentrating the power even more in the hands of the fascists
Idiot troll pretends an army fighting another army is a contradiction.
Fuck off, old child.
You have been proven wrong on every single point you've tried to make, and not a goddamn word of it gets through your skull, because your worldview depends on not understanding it.
Lol what?
Yes, because I can read. Like, the original source, the 2nd amendment, heller decision, contemporaneous writings by the founding fathers, other states constitutions with even more explicit verbiage. So I'm the one who doesn't get it as you beg the fascist government to disarm you. Lol ok
You don't know what a militia is and you think the British were fought by, I dunno, some guys.
You've read things and absorbed only what feels like it validates your worldview. You have no idea why anyone would do anything else. You do not care what words mean.
Useless patience vampire.
It's literally every male. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
You're projecting
So only men can own guns?
Only men aged 18-45?
No. Obviously not. But you demonstrably do not give a shit about the first half of the sentence, despite all this bickering. You treat the conversation as some pitched battle of tone instead of a mutual effort to find fact.
Defining a militia only matters if you're going to muster them, which we don't do anymore. We might as well talk about who's eligible to get deputized to catch fugitive slaves.
We've already been through this. The first part does not limit the second part. It's incredibly clear from the direct text, as well as contemporaneous writing of the founders who wrote it
You're the only one bringing up militia.
Motherfucker it is the first subject of the one sentence we are arguing about. A sentence which goes 'X being needed for Y, let's do Z.' The first part is the only stated reason for the second part. And your stuck ass can't figure out why it keeps coming up.
Oh, no, sorry, this is your goal-oriented reading comprehension: 'we might as well talk about it' in the sense that we don't fucking do that anymore, which is kind of important when it is the only stated reason for the thing we're fucking talking about.
Is that what the justification was?
I suppose that's a convenient way to see it.